from the conflicted dept

On the heels of our last story about someone who raised the public's ire over a "real-world" Counter-Strike map, it seems these stories may only become more prevalent. This seems particularly likely given that the threat of legal action doesn't seem to serve much of a deterrance against those that wish to be creative with game maps in this respect. You had to know that this gaming envelope was only going to be pushed further. Such is the way of things. It's something of a one-up culture. In addition, I should note that I tend to think that punishing this kind of creation is generally wrong. It's a game map, nothing more.

However, I will admit to being heavily conflicted when I came across the story of another Counter-Strike map controversy, this one resulting from the creation of a map based on a local secondary school in Port Moody, British Columbia. The reaction from the locals upon discovering a video of the map on YouTube was, understandably, negative.

"We have rainbow-colored lockers, and it's our field of dreams... and then to watch the video game, and see people shooting up our field of dreams, it was just so disturbing," Alex Devlin, a teacher at Port Moody Secondary School, told CBC News. "I believe it's just a game, it's not reality... but a lot of kids don't live in reality, right," another local said.

Let me start off by saying that I get it. Given recent tragedies suffered on the North American continent, I completely understand the discomfort locals, especially parents, might feel discovering a map of their school being built in a game that is all about shooting. I won't begrudge them their animosity. However, I am extremely pleased that cooler heads prevailed in this case.

The map's creators helped their causes greatly when they published their own website to respond to their critics. Far from antagonizing, they decided to explain why they had chosen the school to serve as inspiration for their game map.

The map was this because it's architecture and design is rather ideal for the game's tactics. Furthermore, this is a location we are quite familiar with already. Additionally, supporters and fellow alumni are also likely familiar with this location, which makes it an ideal common ground for this game and its intended audience.

When you push the admittedly understandable emotional response to the side, their explanation makes a great deal of sense. Local gamers wanting to play a game they love in a fictional representation of a place they know. Once I took a deep breath, I realized that some of the games I love most, and some of those I'm looking forward to the most, feature real locations that I'm familiar with. Any game, for instance, that features the city of Chicago, regardless of the game's genre, is likely going to get a look from me, because I love the idea of playing out a fictional game in the city I love. This is no different, even if the game in question is one that involves weapons and shooting. More importantly, it certainly isn't something that should require legal action. Fortunately, the police in the area agree, saying so in what I would consider to be a surprisingly reasonable response.

Although the creation of such a video game is likely ill-conceived in the current climate, it does not constitute an offence. Investigators from the Port Moody Police Department have interviewed the developer of this game and have concluded that he does not pose a danger to the staff or students of Port Moody Secondary.

In the end, that's all that matters. There is no safety concern in making a map of a school for a game. It's just a map.

from the crowdsourcing-factchecking dept

As Kickstarter continues to mature as a viable platform for funding creative projects, there are still audible whispers expressing concern over fraud and scams on the site. Leigh previously noted one such case, in which the internet community outted a fake game's funding attempt, detailing how that community was responsible for getting the project removed from Kickstarter entirely. At the same time, he discussed how fraud can be found in the more traditional arenas, as can failures. But Kickstarter stories like this seem to garner, what is in my estimation, an undue amount of fear over frauds and scams.

Boasting a backing from well-known Atlanta Falcons running back Jamal Anderson, the project claimed that it was hoping to create a competitor to EA's NCAA Football game and only needed the relatively paltry sum of $500,000 to develop a PS3 and Xbox 360 title.

However, many of the 3D models and assets compiled by the group, calling itself "Dirty Bird Sports", were found to have been lifted from sites selling other artists work, a roundup of which can be seen at Kotaku.

While some might freak out over this, that last bit is what's most interesting to me, and is the proper evidence for pushing back against those claiming the sky is falling. Once again, a vibrant internet community has assisted in outing the liars and scammers, proactively preventing any actual financial harm from occurring. While that same community may not end up with a 100% success rate in stopping such cases, I see these instances as an indication of the maturing of the platform and a direct result of the growth of interest in Kickstarter as a whole. As with any other aspect of crowdsourcing, the benefits rise as the size of the crowd increases. That the internet community is so successful in warning the rest of us of these dangers should be taken as a selling point of Kickstarter, not some scary boogeyman.

from the gotta-freak-out-about-something dept

Not so long ago, the BBC did a scare-mongering show about the supposed "threats" of WiFi radiation on children. Never mind the fact that it was later pointed out that the program used horrendously bad science, that actual scientific tests have shown the fears to be totally overblown (the amount of radiation is minimal, and double blind tests find that people cannot tell when WiFi is on, despite claims to the contrary) and that even the BBC later admitted that the show was poorly done and presented only one side of the story (the fear mongering one) while blatantly making the one reasonable person on the show look bad. It also left out some of the conflicts of interests concerning one of the scientific "experts" on the show (the guy who sold anti-radiation products and has a clear reason to build up fear mongering around WiFi radiation).

But, no matter, anti-WiFi hysteria has been in full bloom since that program aired. Despite all the studies showing little to no impact from WiFi radiation, the UK's Daily Mail is running yet another fear mongering piece about how WiFi in schools is harming children and wants a moratorium on WiFi in schools. Apparently the fact that a year's worth of WiFi radiation is the equivalent of 20 minutes on a mobile phone hasn't been explained to these people.